This is a reallt bizarre argument.
Firstly, as someone just up the screen from here pointed out, yesterday's state-of-the-art doesn't become a pile of steaming animal droppings just because some time has passed - and particularly not because a mere few months have gone by. If this isn't an issue of Macs vs PCs - which would make it not just bizarre but pointless - then the only valid reason for declaring that today's Macs suck is because at some point in the (near?) future, Apple are going to roll out new products over the top of the current ones, and thus dramatically drop the monetary value of today's purchase.
Which leads to my second point: that anyone who buys a computer, whatever flavor it is, with a view to the thing as part of any kind of investment strategy is barking up the wrong tree. That's what diamonds, gold, property, etc., are for. With the exception of the initial shipment of high-demand systems where a lucky owner can maybe sell on ebay for a bit above the original cost until the product starts shipping in quantity, the issue isn't whether the computer is going to loose value, but how rapidly. Where Apple has tended to score is that resale values have in general slid less far down a less steep gradient, but they still slide.
And in the question of economics, lets take a single, simple example. When the G5 was first released, the value of the range of G4s that went before it slumped. The top-of-the-range G5 was a dual 2.0 at $2999. The same thing now is $2499 and maybe at best an 18-month old dual 2.0 would fetch $2000. The lesson from history is that if anyone thinks they can improve the economics of purchasing by waiting for the next generation of whichever Apple they are interested in, they're mistaken - simply because when the upgrade after THAT hits the streets, their Mac's value gets shot down just as yeterday's G5 2.0 was, as the G4's were when the G5s came out, and the G3s were when the G4s arrived.....et al.
Thus the real issue isn't the economics of the thing at all. It's much more simple than that, because yesterday's Macs, today's Macs and tomorrow's Macs are really all the same - they're tools. They aren't an end (however cool they are to own) they're a means, and the choice and timing of a purchase is best served in every practical sense by establishing the need the system is intended to fill, and matching it to the box best fitted to the task. After all, if the need exists today, waiting months to buy isn't a solution. If a prospective customer can afford to wait months, they don't have a need to fill right now, so there's no imperative (or reason) to buy. That's particularly true since there is ALWAYS a better model around the corner, and a price drop to trap existing owners.
So, as a monetary investment, every single Apple product past, present and future, sucks. But not one of those systems that does what it's owner needs of it is anything but great.
